Megyn Kelly Uses Bill Ayers Interview To Smear Obama

Megyn Kelly was so excited about her “world exclusive” interview with Obama’s terrorist pal “unrepentant terrorist” Bill Ayers that she made it the top two segments of her show last night. She even put off discussing yesterday’s Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling, which she excitedly described as capping off “the worst ten days of any modern presidency.” So, not surprisingly, she set up the interview with a six-minute video designed to overstate the tenuous ties between Obama and Ayers.

In February, 2008, Politico investigated the relationship between Obama and Ayers. In an article called, “Obama once visited ‘60s radicals,” Politico reported, “(T)here’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.”

A review of records of the schools project (Ayers and Obama worked on) and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”

It speaks volumes that Kelly made innuendoes and aired a lot of sensational footage suggesting a close connection but she never provided any actual evidence of anything more than a casual relationship between the two.

For example, in her introduction, Kelly said:

Professor Bill Ayers admits to terrorizing this country… and he got away scot free. Because this is America, he wound up as a college professor who even helped a president launch his political career.

Though you might have thought from Kelly’s description that Ayers was some kind of major benefactor or advisor, the truth is he played a rather minimal role. From Politico:

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

...Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.

But Kelly deliberately hyped the connection by moving on to air a 2008 campaign ad from then-candidate Obama’s opponent, John McCain:

Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, friends. They’ve worked together for years. But Obama tries to hide it. Why?

As if in answer, we next heard Kelly saying, “He was one of the most controversial figures in Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.” Then came a clip of Sarah Palin saying Obama is “someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country.”

Kelly did play a clip of Obama saying that it “doesn’t make much sense” to say that what Ayers did when Obama was 8 years old reflects his current values. But that was one brief soundbite in a much longer string of insinuations and accusations otherwise.

Bill Ayers: friend of the man who would be president and an unrepentant terrorist whose group bombed America over and over again.

But the only tie she specifically mentioned was “hosting a fundraiser for the then-Illinois senate candidate.” In other words, she had no more information than Politico on this supposed “friendship.”

But Kelly saw no reason not to suggest something sinister about their “friendship” has been hidden from America. She added, “When their friend becomes a presidential candidate, Ayers stays mostly quiet but emerges soon after the election, sounding far from remorseful.”

Part 2 is tonight. Kelly promised to further use Ayers to smear Obama discuss Ayers’ relationship with Obama.

Watch below how Kelly uses implication, rather than information, to leave the impression of a real connection between Ayers and Obama.

Funny thing is, Bin Laden’s death is officially recorded as 1:00am on May 2, 2011, even though this timeline shows he was killed around 7:00pm on May 1st, and Obama’s announcement was at 11:35pm on May 1st. Anyway, that’s 8 months and more than six meetings with national security officers on the matter before deciding to do something about the information of Bin Laden’s location (once it was determined he must be there). And you really want to say that’s somehow better than Michael Moore’s account of President Bush remaining seated for another eight to nine minutes rather than cutting his public activity short and creating a mass panic? May I also educate you on the fact that MIchael Moore was also proven inaccurate by reporters, teachers and other people who were actually there in the room with Bush and the students in the class? Again, you don’t become aware of such facts when you simply believe what you hear from the far left (or right) without ever questioning it for yourself! I’m sorry, but we could have very easily missed Bin Laden had he decided to relocate during that 8 month span that it took Obama to make one of the easiest decisions in Presidential History; then decided to paint it as a successful victory, even though the intelligence that lead to Bin Laden’s whereabouts was obtained using methods he promised to end during his campaign. I guess it’s a good thing he failed there as well, huh?

@mj: Again, I’m not interested in being shushed by being forced to keep my opinion posts in a hidden forum, compared to these comment posts that are available to everyone reading the article that sparked the debate in the first place.

And you really need to check your facts. Bush had nothing to do with the disbanding of the Bin Laden unit; it was a decision made by CIA officials:

“Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.”

As for the “air guitar” moment, Bush has since admitted that such moments were mistakes he had made, similar to his appointment of a friend to head up FIMA, his photo ops peering out of Air Force at the damage in New Orleans, and even his infamous Mission Accomplished speech. Again, his ability to admit such mistakes shows his ability to accept accountability and responsibility for his own actions; something Obama has never done, and never will! And that’s the difference between a president who continues to take the high road, and one that cowardly blames everything on his predecessor while trying to make us all believe that he knows how to dictate our lives better than we do! What an arrogant SOB!

See what I did there? BEFORE the name-calling, I provided supporting reasons for the label I chose. Meanwhile, you continue to call me names when you know absolutely nothing about me. Worse yet, you choose labels that simply do not apply. For example, the definition of an Internet Troll is “a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,1 by posting inflammatory,2 extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response3 or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” I would argue that there is nothing inflammatory in my posts, as I am able to back up everything I state. And there’s a difference between simply expressing my opinion, and deliberately trying to provoke readers. Remember, it takes at least two sides to carry on a discussion. And, I would also say what we’ve all posted is relevant to the original article, as we are arguing the validity of Fox News reporting; which by the way is also relevant to this entire website, since it’s goal is nothing more than to promote incendiary criticism of Fox News.

Oh, and as for the PDB from the CIA to Bush entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside The US”, are you not aware that more than a dozen such PDBs were delivered to Clinton during his Presidency? Are you not aware that there exists many other reports and other documents delivered to other members of Clinton’s administration, some signed by Clinton himself? Here’s a reference to just one such document that is even referenced in the PDB to Bush:

“December 1, 1998: Bin Laden Actively Planning Attacks Inside US: According to a US intelligence assessment, “[bin Laden] is actively planning against US targets and already may have positioned operatives for at least one operation.… Multiple reports indicate [he] is keenly interested in striking the US on its own soil… Al-Qaeda is recruiting operatives for attacks in the US but has not yet identified potential targets.” Later in the month, a classified document prepared by the CIA and signed by President Clinton states: “The intelligence community has strong indications that bin Laden intends to conduct or sponsor attacks inside the US.” [US CONGRESS, 9/18/2002; WASHINGTONPOST, 9/19/2002; US CONGRESS, 7/24/2003 pdf file; US CONGRESS, 7/24/2003] This warning will be mentioned in the August 2001 memo given to President Bush entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” (see August 6, 2001).”

This is common knowledge, for those willing to accept the truth. Problem is, no other network ever bothered to report it, except Fox News. It only takes a few seconds to verify it if you’re willing to look it up. Many of the documents are now declassified and available to the general public. Again, facts can be rather inconvenient when you become accustomed to drinking the Kool-Aid!

“History tells a different story. Bush’s presidency was leaps and bounds better than Obama’s because he repeatedly reacted to some of the toughest challenges ever, from the war front to national disasters on the home front and abroad.”

OK — this is proof that this sockpuppet (whichever one he is) is not to be taken seriously.

If you think (1) shutting down the CIA unit that was tasked with finding ObL, and (2) playing air guitar in LA while New Orleans drowns, constitutes “react(ing) to some of the toughest challenges ever . . . on the home front and abroad”, you were either asleep or brain-dead from 2001-2009.

(But thanks for the quote, Paul — this is one for the "wingnut HOF quote thread, if its still available in the forum)

@mj: Also, are you seriously saying that Bush’s decision not to jump up in a panic and scare a room full of children and a row of news people recording the class room at the time while his very capable administration handled the crisis until he could get in touch with them is worse than Obama’s sitting on the information of Bin Laden’s location in Pakistan for over a year without holding that country accountable? Even worse was that it took him that long to decide to go in and get him, and making sure there was a camera crew in the situation room to record what he hoped would be a heroic image of himself monitoring the raid? Quite a different reaction to an eight hour long attack on our consulate in Benghazi, wouldn’t you say? Especially since he had a live video feed of the attack and people in direct contact with the State Department describing the attack and clearly identifying it as a terror attack, not some demonstration where the demonstrators just happen to be carrying RPGs and automatic weapons as Obama though we were stupid enough to believe. And even to this day, Obama refuses to account for his whereabouts during the entire thing. Again, the contrast is that when Bush did act, it was decisive and effective, while Obama creates red lines that mean absolutely nothing! Above all, Bush was always straight forward with the American people; and even where he did turn out to be wrong, there’s tons of evidence that suggested he wasn’t. That’s a big difference between being mistaken, and out right lying to the American people (a la Obama and Clinton). And I’d also add that the pre-9/11 mentality that enabled it to happen (e.g., Clinton treating those Al-Qaeda foot soldiers who carried out the first attack on the World Trade Center back in the 90’s), is the same one Obama is now recreating; where we treat enemy combatants wishing to commit mass murders under the guise of religion as if they were common criminals in our society. What could possibly be dumber than that? Do we choose to learn from History, or doom ourselves to repeat it?

History tells a different story. Bush’s presidency was leaps and bounds better than Obama’s because he repeatedly reacted to some of the toughest challenges ever, from the war front to national disasters on the home front and abroad. Most importantly, the world didn’t thumb it’s nose at us because they knew there was weight to his words.

Also, how can you act like there’s nothing to be embarassed about when it comes to Obama’s obismal failures. Many of us pointed out his inexperience, failure to lead, corrupt tactics and ignorance of foreign policy; and now it’s sickening that much damage had to be inflicted on our country before everyone is beginning to see that we were right. Just look at the results of that Quinnipiac University Poll that came out yesterday. Or was it not reported on your preferred networks who rarely even report their own polls’ negative results on Obama’s record? Talk about embarassing.

Anyway, it’s been six years now, so can we finally stop playing the blame Bush game already? When willyou start holding Obama responsible for his own failed policies? If never, then that only proves your bias and closed mindedness that causes you to never have the guts to criticise your own party. How about a little accountability for a change?

mj— pathetic, isn’t it? Bush had only one good moment in the aftermath of 9/11, the “I can hear you” moment standing on the pile at ground zero. Everything before and after that was a national embarrassment.

@ Paul Ayala: *"@mj: She is absolutely correct. As horrible a day as 9/11/2001 was, it revealed then President Bush’s resolve and conviction on confronting our latest enemy, and his willingness to commit to the effort."

“Resolve and conviction”?? ROFLMAO — Dumbya’s “resolve and conviction” consisted of continuing to read “The Pet Goat” to schoolkids with his usual dumb look on his face while an aide tells him the nation’s capital and largest city are under attack . . . and his “willingness to commit to the effort” consisted of the following words just six months after 9/11:

“We haven’t heard much from him (bin Laden). And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.”

@mj: She is absolutely correct. As horrible a day as 9/11/2001 was, it revealed then President Bush’s resolve and conviction on confronting our latest enemy, and his willingness to commit to the effort. It only took a few hours for him to deliver what I imagined to be one of the toughest speeches any President has had to make since the days of Pearl Harbor. The entire national was in shock, and in fear of what laid ahead in the future. From day one, Bush clearly laid out the direction his foreign policy was going to take and, most importantly, he stuck to that policy for the remainder of his eight years. Agree with that policy or not, you can’t deny that he never waiverd from it and the result was that more than a dozen additional terror attacks on US soil were thwarted, Al-Qaeda was on the run and disorganized, the Taliban was no longer in control, Al Qaeda no longer had a safe haven to operate from, and most importantly, we were never again attacked within our borders until the Boston Bombings occurred under Obama’s watch. In my book, that’s the ultimate sign of effective, successful policy, period. Today, terrorists are on the verge of seizing Iraq as their own state, tensions in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are tighter than ever, and our enemies are afforded the same rights as petty criminals with US citizenship. My, what a vast difference!

In contrast, Obama took two major blows from the Supreme Court withing a ten day period. One ruling confirmed that Obama broke the law when he issues executive orders to bypass Congress and made recess appointments when Congress wasn’t even in recess. The second ruling (Hobby Lobby) was a major blow to his signature legislation because now the government can’t impose fines on businesses who opt out of four specific kinds of contraception (while still providing 16 other forms of contraception). This will result in even higher overall costs for Obamacare.

All that’s bad enough, but then you add the news about his inaction regarding the story of a US citizen being one of the kidnapped and murdered teenagers in Israel, then his announcement that he will continue to abuse executive powers, and his doubling down on his “fake scandals” comments, and you have a presidency that is imploding. Again, a huge contrast from the integrity and respect with which Bush brought to the highest office in the land!

Off topic? We’re debating the validity of Fox News compared to other sources, I’d say that’s pretty on topic for an article reporting on a Fox News interview, isn’t it? Why not allow the readers to view the debate front and center where they are more likely to find it after reading the article they found from a web search; rather than having to navigate to an entirely different site that requires a registration to be completed to find the forum you speak of? Sounds to me like you’re simply trying to divert your reader’s eyes from discussions that challenge your thesis.

And after reviewing your simple, straight forward site rules, I can honestly say that I have not even come close to violating any of them. The others in this discussion however have however, including inflammatory remarks and making uncivil, personal attacks just because I do not agree with them. So please, take that into consideration before removing any of our posts in this thread or banning any usernames. That’s a tactic that too many bloggers employ on their sites in an attempt to silence their critics. I truly hope this site is above such behavior!

Anything else you need supporting documentation for? I don’t have all day to do your research. Perhaps you can focus on one key point I made that you wish to refute, and I’ll provide at least three sources to back me up. Can you do the same?

@sandman1: As a Professional Tax Preparer myself, I would like to know when the last time was you read up on the official income tax statistics posted regularly by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and that I receive directly via e-mail almost monthly. Those stats clearly show who pays the majority of taxes in this country, and who gives more charitable contributions, employ more people and provide the bulk of healthcare benefits in this country. Do I really need to post the numbers? Somehow, I don’t think I need to; because I know you’re very capable to look them up for yourself without me having to feed them to you the way MSNBC most likely feeds their propaganda to you already. Failure of understanding a topic as complex as the US Internal Revenue Code (IRC) only discredits anything you have to say on the subject.

And if you really believe we were lied into two wars, where’s the evidence? If it existed, wouldn’t the Democrats have long since charged Bush and Cheney as war criminals (as many far left loons have insisted)? If there were no traces of WMDs in Iraq when we went in, why is it now reported that ISIS just last week took control of a chemical weapons plant in Iraq that still contains nerve agents and other chemical warfare agents? These are the very items Bush and the UN repeatedly demanded evidence of their destruction. Also, it is well documented that there were many reasons for going into Iraq, not just the hope that we could capture WMDs. Sadaam’s repeatedly firing upon US pilots patrolling the no-fly-zone alone to me alone were acts of war and ample reason for us to respond. I would love to see you visit Iraq and interview one of the thousands of women who sifted through the millions of bodies dug up from mass graves wondering if any of them could be their husband, father or child who was taken from their home, tortured and killed. Why not try to tell them it was a senseless and unjust war? The same could be said about Afghanistan. Both countries were better off because of our action, and now Obama is disgracing the sacrifices our troops and their families have made for that effort by allowing Iraq to be turned over to ISIS, a terrorist group even Al Qaeda wanted nothing to do with and who has already threatened the US when their leader said “see you in New York”. I know Obama and the left don’t like to acknowledge inconvenient truths such as the war on terror, but ignoring it will only result in another 9/11 (whether on the scale of New York, or Boston).

Oh, and do you really want to get into a discussion about our economy? How’s all that “Hope and Change” working out for Detroit? And if you want to look at unemployment, how about examining the true unemployment calculation that factors in underemployment, temporary workers, and those who have given up and left the job market? How about insisting that the Obama administration start reporting factual unemployment rates, instead of consistently correcting them to worse numbers in the two weeks following their monthly release? How about examining the unemployment rate among blacks, women and Latinos? How about looking at the estimated impact of Obamacare on businesses and the unemployment rate for years to come? And what about other important job-related statistics, like the one that says 50% of all college graduates are unable to find employment in the first two years on the market?

As for Gitmo, if you are truly against it, why aren’t you demanding that Obama deliver on his campaign promises six years ago to close it? Again, actions speak louder than words. You guys voted for this guy based on his promises to fix the economy, correct unemployment, deliver the most transparent government ever and change Washington from being business as usual. Sorry, but he’s failed on every front!

@visitor 55: Because facts are just that, they tend to be reported often. Facts may be a nuisance to some, but they what they are, and can’t be refuted.

You say the points I made have been “debunked”. If so, how about some links to the direct sources that conflict with what I posted? Stop the name-calling and be prepared to back up your talking points, otherwise, you have none.

@david Lari: How about studying up on trademark law? I am not selling any similar product or using the term in any damaging way. The simple fact you had to describe what Flavor Aid was shows the reason why “Kool-Aid drinkers” is the common phrase; it immediately defines the reference and has a double meaning. Can you list the ingredients of Kool-Aid without having to read the product packaging? That’s the entire point, simply accepting something without analyzing it for yourself.

@visitor 55: Once again, you prove my point. I didn’t see any facts, statistics, cited resources or direct quotes of any kind in your reply to support your side of the argument. That’s exactly what “trolling” is, baseless posts designed to simply get a rise out of followers and draw attention to the forum. You say I’m the stupid one? How about posting something to back up your ideology? How about referring to something that’s actually credible? How about proving to us you at least agree to accept some responsibility for your statements by posting under your actual name, instead of an anonymous username like Visitor 55? How about not displaying your own ignorance by using the term “teabagger”, which is a phrase that describes a vulgar act committed in video games and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, or with the Tea Party for that matter?

Again, I am more than happy to have an intellectual debate with anyone up to the task, but I refuse to have a battle wits with an unarmed person. When you can come back with nothing but name-calling and personal attacks, it only proves that you have nothing to support your argument!

@roger W: Thanks for referring to my previous reply as a well-defended post. If you truly wish to see this website gain the notariety, respect, viewership and fairness that Fox News is known is, thereby providing a viable alternative, then you must embrace the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However, you must also acknowledge the facts that also challenge your point of view. That is when you stop being a Kool-Aid drinker and begin being an intellectual who doesn’t mind their positions being questioned. It is much more effective to defend your argument when you can back it up. Anyone insisting I have nothing but talking points should provide a link to where those talking points are made available, because I sure didn’t get a memo telling me what to believe. And if you really want to argue against the facts I provided, please, by all means provides material that backs up your claims. In kind, I would respond with the same, but they’re readily available to anyone who wishes to look them up. Congressional and Senatorial bills and votes are well documented on the government’s website, as well as the detailed voting record of each representative/senator. So, one can easily research who voted for what and when. For example, why not go and research the vote for military action in Iraq in 2003? I believe you’ll find many of your beloved Democrats and Liberals on the list of those who voted for it (and then proceeded to call it an illegal war). You can also find the entire text of the Obamacare legislation (you know, the one that even Obamacare now refers to as its proper name in order to distance himself from it). You’ll quickly find the section that allows for the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) (aka “Death Panel”); you know, the one all the other media outlets insists doesn’t exist?

Sorry guys, but believe it or not, the public is tired of all the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle. Obama won his first election because the majority believed the “blame Bush” tactic that the media played at the time, and that Obama continues to play ‘til today (I mean seriously, when does Obama begin owning his own presidency)? Whether you choose to admit it or not, that “fair and balanced” approach by Fox News has earned it the title of the number one cable news network for 12 years straight as a direct result of delivering what the people want. And what the people want is honest reporting, journalists that aren’t afraid to ask the tough questions of the President or any other public official, and reporting that can stand up to any challenge. Unlike other news networks that consist of scandals of their own because they were caught shaping news stories fit their agenda (anyone remember the Zimmerman case, or the Duke LaCrosse Case), Fox News rarely ever has to issue retractions. When others do challenge their reporting, they actually cover that too. Compare that to the recent flood of apologies and retractions some of the other networks were forced to put on the air in just the last few months. All one has to do is look at the public ratings to see where the people are turning to for reliable news reporting. Fox News has better ratings during their late night rebroadcasts than all other networks do during the primetime hours COMBINED. I know those facts tear at the heart strings for some of you, but they are the facts. And that is the only reason so many Liberals love attacking Fox News, because the truth hurts. They don’t want to deliver both sides of any argument. They only believe in freedom of speech and press when it fits their ideology. I’ve participated in several other conversations like this on other biased websites in the past, but nearly every one of those conversations were quickly taken down by their moderators. I didn’t use any vulgar language, personally attack someone, or violate any of the other rules posted on their website, but they chose to silence me anyway. Sorry people, but actions definitely speak louder than words. Either you really are for free speech, expression and press, or you’re not. And those freedoms are never as important as when the message they are protecting is not your own! So, I say, put up or shut up.

Paul Ayala: Please stop with the “You Kool-Aid drinkers” shtick. Kool-Aid is a registered trademark owned by Kraft Foods, and I am sure they would appreciate it if you would stop maligning their property. If you were making a reference to the Jonestown Mass Suicide, the best evidence indicates that both Kool-Aid and Flavor Air were present at Jonestown. Flavor Aid is a powdered drink mix similar to Kool-Aid; the product and the Flavor Aid trademark are owned by the Jel Sert Company.http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/11/stop-saying-drink-the-kool-aid/264957/

@joseph West: How typical. Your response was practically word for word what I expected to get back from followers of such biased sources as this. After all, if the tagline under the header of this page doesn’t point out the agenda of the entire website, the 37 references to Fox News in the About page certainly does (as does the affiliation with moveon.org. As for the Outfoxed film, no better than anything produced by Michael Moore. The director is described as a political activist, so why would anyone consider his documentary anything other than biased to his own political agenda? And it’s also blatantly obvious to anyone who watches Fox News regularly that most of the clips were edited and taken out of context. Is that supposed to be an example of true journalism? How about creating a documentary that actually documents facts, rather than serve as baseless propaganda?

With that said, back to your typical liberal response. You Kool-Aid drinkers always resort to name calling like little children backed into a corner when you realize you can’t possibly stand a chance debating the topic at hand.

You really want to compare Obama’s presidency to ANY other? More and more Democrats are distancing themselves from Obama as the campaigns gear up, and even some of his most loyal supporters in the media are beginning to turn on him. Just today a newspaper basically printed an apology to the American people in their editorial page and admitted they were wrong to backing Obama’s campaign, citing many of his failures from environmental to economical and foreign policies. Not even Carter’s presidency was as bad as this guy. This is the same guy who called Bush unpatriotic for racking up over $4 Trillion of debt, then proceeded to rack up over $7 Trillion in debt in just six years (compared to Bush’s entire eight). And the only campaign promise he kept was delivering Obamacare, which the CBO estimates will cost us over $1.76 trillion through 2022 (88% more than the original estimated cost Obama touted of $938 Billion). So, even though he delivered the law as promised, it’s nothing like what his supporters expected; especially the whole deal about not being able to keep your existing plans, resulting in nearly twice as many people being dropped from coverage as those who have reportedly gained coverage (sorry Obama, but Medicaid does not factor into that statistic; so stop thinking we’re that stupid.) So, not even his signature legislation is successful, with the overall costs continuing to climb, people and business opting out left and right, wavers being granted to Democratic supporters, and some insurance companies even pulling out of state markets entirely. Yeah, great plan!

You want to talk facts? How about the national debt, national deficit, unemployment rate among blacks and women, the difference in pay when it comes to women vs men in Obama’s own administration, the number of former Guantanamo Bay prisoners that have been recaptured on the battle field, the laundry list of scandals from the DOJ to the IRS, his horrible foreign policy that has now lead to Iraq being on the brink of becoming a terrorist run state…do I really need to go on here?

You can’t possibly defend the worst presidency in history, with spending far exceeding the total of ALL previous presidents combined! In fact, you can’t name a single one of Obama’s policies as a success, and provide facts/statistics to prove it. And you certainly can’t say that denial of the many scandals, his overreach by way of executive orders, blocking the delivery of subpoenaed documents to congressional oversight committees, and his refusal to account for his whereabouts during the eight hour long attack on our consulate in Benghazi adds up to transparency.

So, if you want to stop the bitching and childish name-calling behavior and actually have an intellectual debate based on the merits of both arguments, I’d gladly participate. Otherwise, I suggest you go and do your own research and stop referring to what you hear on biased sources such as this site and the mainstream media as facts, simply because they agree with your own ideology. You’d do yourself better to think for yourself for change, because that childish behavior only eliminates any credibility you may have.

As to your comment, then please explain why the FoxNoise folks have spent the last FIVE years (he only took office in Jan 2009—I know you teabagger-types have trouble with difficult subjects, like simple math but really, there is help if only you’ll seek it) smearing Obama if what you wrote was true. Of course, Obama hasn’t “tanked” his presidency (compare Obama’s time in office to Dubya’s—now THERE was a guy who knew how to tank his own presidency).

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you’re NOT entitled to your own facts. (For that, you have to wait until you form a corporation—thanks to the right-wing morons at SCOTUS.)

Ayers, IMO, is scum. I was in the left movement back in the day, and even the strongest anti-war lefties shuddered in horror of the Weather Underground. Obama was only a child in those days, so I guess I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t know who he was. Still, I would refuse to this day to have anything to do with the guy, and I’d like to think I’d refuse his help in saving my life. There is, to me, shame on Obama for having even a faint relationship with this man, and I don’t care how much he’d weaseled his way into polite society in Chicago. He should be shunned by every person of conscience. Let him live his life unmolested, but he should stay the hell out of society.

Sorry, but just the man’s name makes my hair stand on end/

His badly distorted judgment, btw, is exemplified by the fact that he consented to go on Kelly’s show.